About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
this on the eve of an election. again, i'm obviously not positing some huge conspiracy. in our environment, in our hyperpartisan environment, most people in a situation like this seeing any possibility for political advantage would have raced to expose something like this, right? general petraeus was confronted about this two weeks ago, right? two weeks before the election. chose -- ultimately decided to resign but didn't decide to resign at that moment. was there part of the reason he did not decide to resign immediately upon being confronted on this, he knew it would be embarrassing for the administration on the eve of an election? that's a reasonable inference. there's so much we don't know because so many people individually have not spoken publicly about the chain of events and their motivations in terms of keeping quiet at a moment of maximum political volatility. >> just to clarify because i've raised a lot of questions here, my biggest concern isn't what happened at the end. i understand there are a lot of conservatives that are going to be thinking that this was -- >> cover-up. >> benghaz
-- there might be a t.a.r.p. like environment where we do go over the cliff, the cliff, whatever that means, exactly, but we don't hit the first set of deadlines. something doesn't pass the first time, but then eventually some of the members of both sides are brought to heal by the prospect of -- >> the real -- not just the pending doom but doom actually present in their laps for a second. that seems like a possible scenario to me. i do think there still is, despite all sharp rhetoric, i still think on the republican side, which is so critical, this notion of the other thing you heard throughout all of the commentary for the last week and over the weekend is that the implications of the election still are -- is sinking in. republicans still -- you see with this continued criticism of romney's comments and so on. that's still setting? >> all right. you mentioned benghazi. let's go to the developments there in the on going controversy over the administration's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in bengha benghazi. members of congress are now vowing to find out why the cia's conclusi
was not sufficiently angry enough in this environment that the primary process was fought in. he wasn't anti-intellectual enough. >> and downplayed his conservatism. >> that was the biggest mistake. he downplayed his conservatism from the very beginning. and i want to say again, mark halperin, the anti-intellectualism in the republican party over the past decade has been growing. that's another thing bobby jindal has been talking about. that's got to change. that's got to change. we not only have to win over hispanics, we've got to win over educated hispanics. educated african-americans. educated white people. educated people of all races with ph.d.s, an area we've been losing for decades. >> and joe, there's another issue that i know you think a lot about and thought a lot about that huntsman also talked about which is afghanistan and ending the war. that's another populist issue that i think republicans missed in 2012. the president was for winding down the war. you had others who didn't run that thought that that was an issue to tap into across the board populists including a lot of the g
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)